That's exactly the point that annoys me so - writing fictional stories should *not* place anyone at the edge of a cliff. And in almost any other context, it doesn't - anyone can write fiction (and get published) on anything from serial killers to the Mafia to war and the atomic bomb and whatnot. It's only illegality in a fictional *sexual* context that sends up the outcry.
I'm not sure that's quite right, you know -- I'd say it's more generally illegality in (a) an emotive context where (b) that might be a reflection of the author's RL intentions that causes outcry. I think you'd need both (a) and (b) to get the effect. As a thought experiment, consider what might happen if someone wanted to publish fiction from the point of view of Al-Qaeda types, in which they were the 'good guys', their 'kill the infidels' mindset was treated positively by the author, and they succeeded in their goals in the story. The shitstorm that would follow would be immense.
More to the point, the nature of fanfic as opposed to published fiction is relevant here. If John Norman (or George RR Martin, for that matter) writes about these things, there may be a certain amount of concern, but the author is a known public figure to an extent. There's probably a tacit assumption that the publishers have determined that they are not in fact likely to do these sorts of things in actuality, or they would have been rejected. On the other hand, if some pseudonymous author on the Internet writes about them, it's hard to know where they might be coming from, especially if the story isn't well-written enough to be obviously 'literary' rather than personal. It wouldn't be an unreasonable attitude, even if we 'insiders' might identify it as merely fannish exploration or the kink-writing equivalent of a pissing contest.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2007-06-02 01:12 am (UTC)I'm not sure that's quite right, you know -- I'd say it's more generally illegality in (a) an emotive context where (b) that might be a reflection of the author's RL intentions that causes outcry. I think you'd need both (a) and (b) to get the effect. As a thought experiment, consider what might happen if someone wanted to publish fiction from the point of view of Al-Qaeda types, in which they were the 'good guys', their 'kill the infidels' mindset was treated positively by the author, and they succeeded in their goals in the story. The shitstorm that would follow would be immense.
More to the point, the nature of fanfic as opposed to published fiction is relevant here. If John Norman (or George RR Martin, for that matter) writes about these things, there may be a certain amount of concern, but the author is a known public figure to an extent. There's probably a tacit assumption that the publishers have determined that they are not in fact likely to do these sorts of things in actuality, or they would have been rejected. On the other hand, if some pseudonymous author on the Internet writes about them, it's hard to know where they might be coming from, especially if the story isn't well-written enough to be obviously 'literary' rather than personal. It wouldn't be an unreasonable attitude, even if we 'insiders' might identify it as merely fannish exploration or the kink-writing equivalent of a pissing contest.